Hello, Martin.
The patch looks okay to me. Just one nit.
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 09:28:31AM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> @@ -4233,10 +4233,20 @@ static const struct ata_blacklist_entry ata_device_blacklist [] = {
> { "PIONEER DVD-RW DVR-216D", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NOSETXFER },
>
> /* devices that don't properly handle queued TRIM commands */
> - { "Micron_M500*", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM, },
> - { "Crucial_CT???M500SSD*", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM, },
> - { "Micron_M550*", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM, },
> - { "Crucial_CT*M550SSD*", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM, },
> + { "Micron_M[56]*", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM |
> + ATA_HORKAGE_ZERO_AFTER_TRIM, },
> + { "Crucial_CT*SSD*", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM, },
> +
> + /*
> + * DRAT/RZAT are weak guarantees. Explicitly black/whitelist
> + * SSDs that provide reliable zero after TRIM.
> + */
Can you please be more detailed on the above explanation? It's not
like most people would be familiar with acronyms like DRAT/RZAT and
what the surrounding situation is like to require this sort of
whitelisting.
> + { "INTEL*SSDSC2MH*", NULL, 0, }, /* Blacklist intel 510 */
> + { "INTEL*SSD*", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_ZERO_AFTER_TRIM, },
I think the above two can use a bit more verbose explanation too.
> + { "SSD*INTEL*", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_ZERO_AFTER_TRIM, },
> + { "Samsung*SSD*", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_ZERO_AFTER_TRIM, },
> + { "SAMSUNG*SSD*", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_ZERO_AFTER_TRIM, },
> + { "ST[1248][0248]0[FH]*", NULL, ATA_HORKAGE_ZERO_AFTER_TRIM, },
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
